do you try to consider why other people like things that you don't and perhaps end up expanding the realm of what you like? I'm talking about nature photography only here.
I have noticed that there are images that just draw me to the thumbnail and other images that really do the opposite (and of course many in between). I'm wondering if I should spend more time on those that don't appeal to me at all to see if my thinking and perception change or if what we like in nature photography is really kind of built in and not really changeable.
Posted by Scott Fricke on January 23, 2011 at 10:52 AM
While I mostly participate in the ESS and M&N galleries I do appreciate the art and craftsmanship it takes to create a beautiful image of any subject matter and I try to view the other galleries so I can try to pick up on techniques used to create those images. I tend to think composition and processing techniques can be transferrable along subject matter.
For me, it's always changing and evolving. Hmmm. Let me rephrase that. I don't really give up on things as I move on to others, so maybe it's more like a slow awakening. I might start off NOT liking something, but after a while it grows on me. That applies both to genera and to individual photographers and photos.
Probably the best example I can cite is the photography of Eliot Porter. His later work of complex and "busy" intimate landscapes and especially birds is pretty bland when contrasted with his grand landscapes or those of Ansel Adams and even Galen Rowell. I just couldn't warm up to it. But I started asking myself WHY he shot each of his photos, studying images that I didn't particularly like and trying to sort them out, almost like solving a puzzle. And after a while I seemed to "get" them, to finally discover what I think he saw in them.
I believe what I discovered was the process of seeing photos through the eyes of the photographer, and not just my own eyes. I certainly might have shot them differently, but in understanding what the photographer was seeing and trying to accomplish, I learn more about the photographer and more importantly, another way of seeing.
Posted by Steve Kennedy on January 23, 2011 at 12:24 PM
Hank, I think that was well said. For me, being SUCH an amateur, I am struggling to find my own eyes and voice. When I look at the work of other photographers, whether they are the well known and highly praised or not, I like to read the critiques and try to SEE what the photographer and the critique writer were seeing. In some cases I try to imitate what I see. This has helped me tremendously, though I don't think my photos show it yet.
Hi, Barbara. You do pose some of the best, thought-provoking questions. I think Hank says it best for me. Going on field workshops really helped to expand my horizons as to how many different ways there are to see something. And here, at NPN, browsing the "all photos" forum has the same effect. There are definitely images I am drawn to immediately and others I have to look at longer and study. Gradually, (at least for me !) concepts and visions become integrated into my way of seeing in the field and my photography evolves. So, I believe some of what we like to shoot is wired in to us because of experience, physiology, culture, etc. And I believe that what we shoot can evolve over time.
Posted by Nancy de Flon on January 23, 2011 at 1:36 PM
I, too, agree with Hank entirely. Trying to critique a photo from the perspective of what the photographer was trying to do is vital. I once belonged to an online peer-critique group (not NPN) where so many were advising what "should" be done based on what they would do instead of learning from the photographer what they wanted to do, I gave it up as pointless. E.g., don't tell me to crop things down to the bare minimum when my intention was a piece of environmental journalism.
It's tempting, when surveying the thumbnails in a gallery, only to "view" the images that readily appeal from the thumbnails; after all, none of us has an unlimited amount of time. But sometimes I've made a point of viewing something that didn't particularly attract me in the thumbnail and then I saw the image from a whole new perspective and was glad I went that extra step.
Hank, I found your comments on Eliot Porter very interesting. He's one of my heroes. I must say I find some of his work somehow disorienting and thus disturbing, but I assumed that was the effect he wanted. Occasionally I go a bit nuts and take photos for what I call my "Eliot Porter Wants His Camera Back" series.
Great question!
For me, I know what I like - but have learned more from others who post things I may NOT like. I look at almost all images here, and always try to see what the photographer saw in an image.
I've very purposely tried NOT to limit myself to Avian, or wildlife, or landscapes - but to see any scene with a photographer's eye. This is why I post in every forum, not just Avian, for instance - even though that is my favorite. I learned quickly, when I needed to stay very close to home as a caregiver for my ill mother, that even the back yard is FULL of potential images. Now, I can travel more again - but that lesson has served me well.
As you develop and grow - learn from as many different people/perspectives/subjects as you can.
Sandy
Posted by Richard Wong on January 24, 2011 at 3:03 AM
Hank really says it best. I had that same experience when I first became familiarized with William Neill's work through Outdoor Photographer. I didn't get it for a while until I saw his prints at the Weston Gallery in Carmel. Now I really respect his body of work.
Thanks for the topic Barbara, and with your permission I'll "expand" it a bit: I can also make a case for photos with immediate impact.
Whether for thumbnails or larger presentation, there is "pressure" not to challenge the viewer. Graphic or simple comps get the best reviews on web sites, and clients with checkbooks agree. Whether for advertising or display on a wall, simplicity adds to marketability in direct proportion to how quickly viewers "get" a photo.
If my motive for a shot is sales, I'll use my insights from "solving" a complex scene to shoot simpler and more graphic versions as well. The challenging version requires and rewards contemplation, while the graphic one does better on web sites and sales.
Even if you never sell a complex version, spotting it is key to solving the difficult scenes and finding shots. The better you become at it, the more you'll find to shoot. The best place I know to practice is right here, sitting at your computer with photos from other NPNers. If you don't "get" a photo, it may be a sign that you're missing something.
Posted by Gary Gulash on January 24, 2011 at 11:25 PM
A thought provoking topic Barbara. I try to look at a cross-section of the posted photos without prejudice. I always thought it was odd that some photos received almost no comments while others received many. If we are open-minded in our approach the comment count should "in-theory" be the same across the board in a forum built on critique. I see no reason why the comments could not be evenly categorized into : A. That's awesome B. That's mildly "interesting" and C. This isn't working for me; followed by the reasoning behind our views. We like what we like, but that assessment is quite plastic and changes as our photography IQ matures. We really must strive to keep our eyes open to new possibilities or risk getting stale. Who knows where the inspiration comes from.
(Now I'm going to review some of Eliot Porter's photography).
(Now I'm going to review some of Eliot Porter's photography).
Ha. Gotcha!
To put a point on it, I suspect a very large number of Porter's photos would be completely panned in today's NPN galleries. For one thing, there are truly amazing photos on the NPN galleries. But also, the complexity or challenge of many of his photos belie the way most of us see and review photos.
If this Porter photo was plagiarized by an NPN member and posted in one of the galleries, do you think it would receive the study we give it as a Porter photo? I don't think so!
Google Porter and survey the photos you find, asking yourself how they would be reviewed today.
> Google Porter and survey the photos you find, asking yourself how they would be reviewed today.
You are absolutely correct, Hank. Porter's work wouldn't stand a chance. In fact, I am afraid that even Hollywood is going to be left in the dust. Modern day landscape photography seems to be all about mind numbing saturation/contrast and artistic liberties exercised with gusto when seated in front of Photoshop? Its not just the Internet forums, take a look at some of the popular nature/outdoor photography magazines at the newstand and you'll know what I mean.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on January 25, 2011 at 7:58 PM
Along the lines of what Anil is speaking, I've noticed recent ESS images shot on Velvia and scanned by very competent folks look quiet and desaturated compared to the digital norm seen here today. People still refer to Velvia as Disneychrome or cartoonish color and yet we've left that placemarker in our dust today.
Expanding on Hank's point, I think that even the majority of Ansel Adams work would not be accepted in the forums today. Some of the biggies like Clearing Winter Storm or Snake River Overlook would undoubtedly be received fine, but I expect the majority of his work would pan.
When I bought my first Porter book several years ago, I bought it because I knew the book was an important landmark in nature photography, not because I actually knew much about Eliot Porter. I'd bought a copy of "In Wildness...", first edition from 1963 in excellent conditions save the dust jacket for $1 at a flea market. That volume was and is worth about $200.
I'd say in 2005-2006 my tastes leaned towards the postcard/calendar grand landscape variety, though my tastes in art leaned towards Japanese prints and panels, abstract expressionism, minimalism and other modern genres rather than classical landscape. I still enjoy a good Beirstadt or Moran, but I always stop by the modern work when I'm visiting galleries.
I opened "In Wildness..." and then left it on the shelf for a year or so. When I came back to it, I really took time to study it and came to appreciate the craft that went into producing the images and the book itself. Each page is a lithograph with which Porter was involved in creating the plates and approving the final prints and each page is varnished before it is bound. It is truly a beautifully printed book and my copy looks amazing now almost 50 years old. It drew me in.
On that second viewing of the book, it clicked. I understood the work and it changed the very way I think about nature photography. I began to expand the range of books in my collection and now have several Porter titles, Adams titles, Steglitz as well as photographic work unrelated to nature photography, Whistler, Monet, Manet, Charley Harper, studies of Japanese prints, etc... I subscribe to ViewCamera and COLOR, and may subscribe again to Aperture to see what is going on in the so called fine Art market. I studied a wider range of work including topics from composition to color theory. I started reading work from people involved in the conservation movement.
Since Porter came up and he is one of my favorites, if you'd like to see Porter's work without diving into the books or making a trip down to the local library, you can find much of his portfolio online at the Amon Carter museum. link If you like it, I'd encourage you to also look at the work of his contemporary, Phillip Hyde.
I've changed both my style and my image preferences over time. I'm not sure I would start with NPN thumbnails though. I'm sure your local library has a good selection of photography portfolio books (coffee table books) which you could check out. Today, photography has a nearly 200 year history of images and publications. There is a wide selection of material out there ifyou care to expand your scope.
I think what confuses this also is what people have in mind when they critique our images for us. Most experienced people are probably critiquing based on what would sell today, and it may be that if you had to choose only one critique foundation that would be the one most people would choose. Maybe critiquing on the basis of something besides what would sell to today would elicit different feedback in some cases.
Posted by Stan Rose on January 25, 2011 at 10:33 PM
But if it doesnt sell, how am i supposed to buy more beer??? I think you are wise to consider other likes and styles, because there's always a danger of becoming too self-absorbed. But that doesn't mean that you have to deny your own preferences, just be open-minded.
Hank, speak for the majority, maybe, but i would give that Porter shot my full attention (and quite frankly, i think its a pretty lame shot, for Porter or anyone on NPN)
For me it all falls under the heading of "know your audience." If you're shooting for an audience of one (yourself), damn the torpedoes and the critics, and full speed ahead. But the more you understand different audiences, the more they will influence your choices. Even if your audience is an NPN gallery.
In my case, I try to shoot something on the order of half a dozen different treatments of a subject with a specific audience (or use) in mind for each. That's the nature of selling to a bunch of different venues or markets. The straight landscape might be for print sales, but then I ask my wife to step into frame with her camera for a travel shot. Wait till that bear finally moves into place, and it starts to get real "interesting" commercially speaking. Now it has potential for businesses appealing to wildlife viewers, too. And maybe for print sales to wildlife and landscape lovers as well.
Whoops! Flip that camera and shoot all three again in the vertical and I'm up to six marketable shots without shifting my tripod an inch.
But that audience of one.... There's the rub. The stuff I shoot for myself is for me. And it may not resemble any of the previous six.
this is a terrific question! But, I'm not sure how to answer it. I do look at photos, that I don't like and get great ideas from them, like Nancy said.
I have sold a number of my "themed " photos...horses, TX wildflowers , sunsets. But, I don't follow any set formula. I can usually find something to photograph anywhere. I know that it is VERY hard to KEEP me from going down rabbit trails..... I go places and something captures my eye, so I take it. Then ,I see something else entirely and take that. Before digital I wasted a LOT of film
I guess my real aim is to photograph the unusual and commonly overlooked subjects. Or photograph "normal" shots from an unsual angle or perspective. My Rule is that there are NO Rules. I'll probably stay a "jack of all trades, and a master of none"! I thought about going to art school in college, But I did not envision taking conventional commercial photos. And I"m pretty sure The Louvre doesn't want my work.
I want to sell my photos as works of art, but have, not as yet, found a way to market my photos. that is my new project! Being sent on assignment by Nat Geo would be a dream for me....except for those shots taken IN a river with crocs! I really don't want to get eaten or get some rare, tropical disease! Although, I HAVE been shot at doing fieldwork in Tennessee (as a geologist). The landowner thought we were looking to shut down his still!
I would love to take workshops with other photographers. But, to paraphrase a well known quote. How to make a small fortune in horses, is to start with a very large fortune. Since I love horses so much, I'll never have the means to sail off to the Galapagos. But, as Sandy said, I find so much in my own backyard (Texas), that I'll never get bored.
My eye is drawn to shape, color, then texture. Unfortunately, I ":should" take a class in lighting. I know what light is best, but I'm not patient enough to wait for it....although my husband would disagree! I have waited hours for the perfect sunset, or for an insect to land on a particular flower. But, I find that in photographing everything....I usually find a gem or two.
I just try to see what others may not see. but, I'm willing to try any new technique or mimic another photographer's style if I like it. I guess I really don't always look for subjects, they seem to find me. So, yes again, I do look at a great deal of other photographer's work. And I often try out the advice given to others in this network. But, what's great is, that I'll never stop looking for something new to learn!
Mel has it right. There is a world of opportunities to learn! You just have to be open. Just learn to absorb others' points of view and fuse them with your own instincts.
Discussion
17 repliesI have noticed that there are images that just draw me to the thumbnail and other images that really do the opposite (and of course many in between). I'm wondering if I should spend more time on those that don't appeal to me at all to see if my thinking and perception change or if what we like in nature photography is really kind of built in and not really changeable.
Probably the best example I can cite is the photography of Eliot Porter. His later work of complex and "busy" intimate landscapes and especially birds is pretty bland when contrasted with his grand landscapes or those of Ansel Adams and even Galen Rowell. I just couldn't warm up to it. But I started asking myself WHY he shot each of his photos, studying images that I didn't particularly like and trying to sort them out, almost like solving a puzzle. And after a while I seemed to "get" them, to finally discover what I think he saw in them.
I believe what I discovered was the process of seeing photos through the eyes of the photographer, and not just my own eyes. I certainly might have shot them differently, but in understanding what the photographer was seeing and trying to accomplish, I learn more about the photographer and more importantly, another way of seeing.
It's tempting, when surveying the thumbnails in a gallery, only to "view" the images that readily appeal from the thumbnails; after all, none of us has an unlimited amount of time. But sometimes I've made a point of viewing something that didn't particularly attract me in the thumbnail and then I saw the image from a whole new perspective and was glad I went that extra step.
Hank, I found your comments on Eliot Porter very interesting. He's one of my heroes. I must say I find some of his work somehow disorienting and thus disturbing, but I assumed that was the effect he wanted. Occasionally I go a bit nuts and take photos for what I call my "Eliot Porter Wants His Camera Back" series.
For me, I know what I like - but have learned more from others who post things I may NOT like. I look at almost all images here, and always try to see what the photographer saw in an image.
I've very purposely tried NOT to limit myself to Avian, or wildlife, or landscapes - but to see any scene with a photographer's eye. This is why I post in every forum, not just Avian, for instance - even though that is my favorite. I learned quickly, when I needed to stay very close to home as a caregiver for my ill mother, that even the back yard is FULL of potential images. Now, I can travel more again - but that lesson has served me well.
As you develop and grow - learn from as many different people/perspectives/subjects as you can.
Sandy
Whether for thumbnails or larger presentation, there is "pressure" not to challenge the viewer. Graphic or simple comps get the best reviews on web sites, and clients with checkbooks agree. Whether for advertising or display on a wall, simplicity adds to marketability in direct proportion to how quickly viewers "get" a photo.
If my motive for a shot is sales, I'll use my insights from "solving" a complex scene to shoot simpler and more graphic versions as well. The challenging version requires and rewards contemplation, while the graphic one does better on web sites and sales.
Even if you never sell a complex version, spotting it is key to solving the difficult scenes and finding shots. The better you become at it, the more you'll find to shoot. The best place I know to practice is right here, sitting at your computer with photos from other NPNers. If you don't "get" a photo, it may be a sign that you're missing something.
(Now I'm going to review some of Eliot Porter's photography).
Ha. Gotcha!
To put a point on it, I suspect a very large number of Porter's photos would be completely panned in today's NPN galleries. For one thing, there are truly amazing photos on the NPN galleries. But also, the complexity or challenge of many of his photos belie the way most of us see and review photos.
If this Porter photo was plagiarized by an NPN member and posted in one of the galleries, do you think it would receive the study we give it as a Porter photo? I don't think so!
Google Porter and survey the photos you find, asking yourself how they would be reviewed today.
You are absolutely correct, Hank. Porter's work wouldn't stand a chance. In fact, I am afraid that even Hollywood is going to be left in the dust. Modern day landscape photography seems to be all about mind numbing saturation/contrast and artistic liberties exercised with gusto when seated in front of Photoshop? Its not just the Internet forums, take a look at some of the popular nature/outdoor photography magazines at the newstand and you'll know what I mean.
Expanding on Hank's point, I think that even the majority of Ansel Adams work would not be accepted in the forums today. Some of the biggies like Clearing Winter Storm or Snake River Overlook would undoubtedly be received fine, but I expect the majority of his work would pan.
When I bought my first Porter book several years ago, I bought it because I knew the book was an important landmark in nature photography, not because I actually knew much about Eliot Porter. I'd bought a copy of "In Wildness...", first edition from 1963 in excellent conditions save the dust jacket for $1 at a flea market. That volume was and is worth about $200.
I'd say in 2005-2006 my tastes leaned towards the postcard/calendar grand landscape variety, though my tastes in art leaned towards Japanese prints and panels, abstract expressionism, minimalism and other modern genres rather than classical landscape. I still enjoy a good Beirstadt or Moran, but I always stop by the modern work when I'm visiting galleries.
I opened "In Wildness..." and then left it on the shelf for a year or so. When I came back to it, I really took time to study it and came to appreciate the craft that went into producing the images and the book itself. Each page is a lithograph with which Porter was involved in creating the plates and approving the final prints and each page is varnished before it is bound. It is truly a beautifully printed book and my copy looks amazing now almost 50 years old. It drew me in.
On that second viewing of the book, it clicked. I understood the work and it changed the very way I think about nature photography. I began to expand the range of books in my collection and now have several Porter titles, Adams titles, Steglitz as well as photographic work unrelated to nature photography, Whistler, Monet, Manet, Charley Harper, studies of Japanese prints, etc... I subscribe to ViewCamera and COLOR, and may subscribe again to Aperture to see what is going on in the so called fine Art market. I studied a wider range of work including topics from composition to color theory. I started reading work from people involved in the conservation movement.
Since Porter came up and he is one of my favorites, if you'd like to see Porter's work without diving into the books or making a trip down to the local library, you can find much of his portfolio online at the Amon Carter museum. link If you like it, I'd encourage you to also look at the work of his contemporary, Phillip Hyde.
I've changed both my style and my image preferences over time. I'm not sure I would start with NPN thumbnails though. I'm sure your local library has a good selection of photography portfolio books (coffee table books) which you could check out. Today, photography has a nearly 200 year history of images and publications. There is a wide selection of material out there ifyou care to expand your scope.
Amen!
Hank, speak for the majority, maybe, but i would give that Porter shot my full attention (and quite frankly, i think its a pretty lame shot, for Porter or anyone on NPN)
In my case, I try to shoot something on the order of half a dozen different treatments of a subject with a specific audience (or use) in mind for each. That's the nature of selling to a bunch of different venues or markets. The straight landscape might be for print sales, but then I ask my wife to step into frame with her camera for a travel shot. Wait till that bear finally moves into place, and it starts to get real "interesting" commercially speaking. Now it has potential for businesses appealing to wildlife viewers, too. And maybe for print sales to wildlife and landscape lovers as well.
Whoops! Flip that camera and shoot all three again in the vertical and I'm up to six marketable shots without shifting my tripod an inch.
But that audience of one.... There's the rub. The stuff I shoot for myself is for me. And it may not resemble any of the previous six.
this is a terrific question! But, I'm not sure how to answer it. I do look at photos, that I don't like and get great ideas from them, like Nancy said.
I have sold a number of my "themed " photos...horses, TX wildflowers , sunsets. But, I don't follow any set formula. I can usually find something to photograph anywhere. I know that it is VERY hard to KEEP me from going down rabbit trails..... I go places and something captures my eye, so I take it. Then ,I see something else entirely and take that. Before digital I wasted a LOT of film
I guess my real aim is to photograph the unusual and commonly overlooked subjects. Or photograph "normal" shots from an unsual angle or perspective. My Rule is that there are NO Rules. I'll probably stay a "jack of all trades, and a master of none"! I thought about going to art school in college, But I did not envision taking conventional commercial photos. And I"m pretty sure The Louvre doesn't want my work.
I want to sell my photos as works of art, but have, not as yet, found a way to market my photos. that is my new project! Being sent on assignment by Nat Geo would be a dream for me....except for those shots taken IN a river with crocs! I really don't want to get eaten or get some rare, tropical disease! Although, I HAVE been shot at doing fieldwork in Tennessee (as a geologist). The landowner thought we were looking to shut down his still!
I would love to take workshops with other photographers. But, to paraphrase a well known quote. How to make a small fortune in horses, is to start with a very large fortune. Since I love horses so much, I'll never have the means to sail off to the Galapagos. But, as Sandy said, I find so much in my own backyard (Texas), that I'll never get bored.
My eye is drawn to shape, color, then texture. Unfortunately, I ":should" take a class in lighting. I know what light is best, but I'm not patient enough to wait for it....although my husband would disagree! I have waited hours for the perfect sunset, or for an insect to land on a particular flower. But, I find that in photographing everything....I usually find a gem or two.
I just try to see what others may not see. but, I'm willing to try any new technique or mimic another photographer's style if I like it. I guess I really don't always look for subjects, they seem to find me. So, yes again, I do look at a great deal of other photographer's work. And I often try out the advice given to others in this network. But, what's great is, that I'll never stop looking for something new to learn!
Mel has it right. There is a world of opportunities to learn! You just have to be open. Just learn to absorb others' points of view and fuse them with your own instincts.